Barack Obama is an illegal president,...

Barack Obama is an illegal president, period

There are 301 comments on the Pravda story from Jun 25, 2012, titled Barack Obama is an illegal president, period. In it, Pravda reports that:

American politicians and the media are lying to the American people. They do so because they hope that their complicity in the greatest fraud in U.S. history will be overtaken by events, that is, the 2012 election.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Pravda.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#168 Jan 23, 2013
ManBearPig wrote:
It's pathetic. Your nothing but a puppet.
A+ for getting "it's" right.
F for screwing up "you're" again.

Honestly, you need to tell "you're" mother she was a failure at home schooling.

Then you need to learn at least SOMETHING about US history before you start spouting opinions.

You know what they say, opinions are like a$4holes, and you're an opinion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#169 Jan 23, 2013
That speaks for itself. Are you a foreigner? Is asking that question racist?

Sheesh. And obama has the muslim brotherhood on many of his staff positions. That FACT is well known. Do you like the muslim brotherhood and what they stand for?

Am I "racist" for standing against them? Are they "racist" for hating Americans?

But, please, keep talking Hollywood!

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#170 Jan 23, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
That speaks for itself. Are you a foreigner? Is asking that question racist?
It's not racist without further connotation. I'm not.
Sheesh. And obama has the muslim brotherhood on many of his staff positions. That FACT is well known.
That "fact" is that one person on his staff _HAD_ a grandfather (dead before she knew him) who ~50 years ago was associated with a person who would later form a group which would half a century later become the what we now call the Muslim Brotherhood.

That's not EXACTLY what you said or tried to imply, now is it?

Are you saying that no one should be allowed to be in politics if their grandparents were involved in something that we today dislike?

Can you point to the clause in the Constitution that says something like that?
Do you like the muslim brotherhood and what they stand for?
Am I "racist" for standing against them? Are they "racist" for hating Americans?
I don't like or dislike the Muslim Brotherhood. They are essentially a political party. I'm sure that some of them are a-holes who spout worthless hate-filled rhetoric on their version of FoxNews. I'm sure others are centerists who are trying to help whatever country they live in move toward democracy.

You aren't "racist" for standing against them _IF_ you are specifically opposed to some point of their party platform. However, if you are against them because they are "muslims", then yes. That's racist.

They are not "racist" for hating America because America is not a race. If they hate America because America supports Israel, and they hate Israel because of the Jews, then that's racist by extension.

If they hate America because America propped up some dictator for a few decades, then that's a political issue.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#171 Jan 23, 2013
A-G-A-I-N, this has NOTHING to do with solving this country's financial woes, or plethora of other problems. Well, deep down on the totem pole it might, but it's not what I'd call an immediate priority. You seem to latch onto this topic easily and forget about the rest conveniently.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#172 Jan 23, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
A-G-A-I-N, this has NOTHING to do with solving this country's financial woes, or plethora of other problems. Well, deep down on the totem pole it might, but it's not what I'd call an immediate priority. You seem to latch onto this topic easily and forget about the rest conveniently.
Let me get this straight.

YOU ask me a question.
I answer it.
You then say I'm switching the subject.

Seriously? Are you that f'ing lame in your debate technique.

YOU asked. I answered. If you don't think it's relevant, then STFU already.

I've already answered, MULTIPLE times how to fix the financial situation and it involves having the people who are EXPLOITING the system pay their fair share.

Romney didn't pay a red cent in taxes for a DECADE. Meanwhile the working class (the people he calls the 47% of "takers") all paid more than they could afford.

He paid ZERO. They paid LOTS.

THAT is the problem.

I recent study of the top 100 wealthiest people in the world (yes, most of them are not in America) found that their combined wealth was enough to _end_ poverty worldwide.

That's 100 people out of 7 BILLION. And those 100 people have enough money to end poverty which effects nearly HALF the world population.

That's RIDICULOUS. And if you can't admit that, then you have no business talking about economics or history.
ManBearPig

Toms River, NJ

#173 Jan 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me get this straight.
YOU ask me a question.
I answer it.
You then say I'm switching the subject.
Seriously? Are you that f'ing lame in your debate technique.
YOU asked. I answered. If you don't think it's relevant, then STFU already.
This quote is absolutely priceless. I seriously do not believe you wrote that. It is, in fact, the exact same position I take regarding our "discussion" only delivered with a childish tact most unbecoming of the left wing today. Perhaps now is a good time to explain why your side thinks you can get away with such hipocracy.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#174 Jan 24, 2013
ManBearPig wrote:
<quoted text>
This quote is absolutely priceless. I seriously do not believe you wrote that. It is, in fact, the exact same position I take regarding our "discussion" only delivered with a childish tact most unbecoming of the left wing today. Perhaps now is a good time to explain why your side thinks you can get away with such hipocracy.
Show me where I have even once accused you of changing the subject.

And, if you want to talk hypocrisy (by the way that red line under the word means "look it up"), the GOP is in no position to point fingers.

Can you find a position where Conservatives haven't been holding the "this law only applies to you, not me" line?

Pick a subject: homosexuality, abortion, gun control, taxes, budget, etc.
ManBearPig

Toms River, NJ

#175 Jan 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where I have even once accused you of changing the subject.
And, if you want to talk hypocrisy (by the way that red line under the word means "look it up"), the GOP is in no position to point fingers.
Can you find a position where Conservatives haven't been holding the "this law only applies to you, not me" line?
Pick a subject: homosexuality, abortion, gun control, taxes, budget, etc.
I point out your hypocrisy (happy now?) and your response is for me to defend 5 broad subjects? That's you just dancing around the accusation. I can admit, however, the one thing you haven't accused me of is changing the subject because you can't. I haven't once validated any of your outbursts by getting pulled into an off topic debate as you repeatedly try to do.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#176 Jan 24, 2013
ManBearPig wrote:
<quoted text>
I point out your hypocrisy (happy now?) and your response is for me to defend 5 broad subjects?
No, go back and read it. I've pointed out that Conservatives such as yourself have a monopoly on hypocrisy. I suggested a few areas where it's obvious and challenged you to come up with any area in which the Conservatives aren't hypocrites.

That's not me pulling you off topic, by the way. You brought up hypocrisy in the first place. That's me responding to your assertion.

By the way, this sort of "what's on topic/what's off topic" would be much easier for you to understand if you had completed at least one year of high school.

Is there ANY subject with which you are at least conversant? We know English and US History are beyond your grasp?

What about NASCAR?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#177 Jan 24, 2013
One person from the muslim brotherhood on his staff? What rock are you living under? Oh, that's right. You're off in cartoonland in Hollyweird.

Read it and educate yourself, then DENY, DENY, DENY, just like Hillary did yesterday.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/26/wa...

It's real simple. obama helped the MB to get to power in Egypt by the slightest margin over the christians, who were rightfully voted in. obama returns favor.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/26/wa...

DENY, DENY, DENY.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#178 Jan 24, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
One person from the muslim brotherhood on his staff? What rock are you living under? Oh, that's right. You're off in cartoonland in Hollyweird.
Read it and educate yourself, then DENY, DENY, DENY, just like Hillary did yesterday.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/26/wa...
Would you be willing to discuss this indepth? Or when I start pointing out what the article ACTUALLY says are you going to run off and cry like a little baby?

Because I'll go person by person down this list and show you EXACTLY what the article you linked says.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#179 Jan 24, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
It's real simple. obama helped the MB to get to power in Egypt by the slightest margin over the christians, who were rightfully voted in.
LOL! This is absolute fiction.

Coptics represent less than 10% of the Egyptian population.

A Christian might get elected to office there, but a Christian political party simply doesn't stand a chance.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#180 Jan 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! This is absolute fiction.
Coptics represent less than 10% of the Egyptian population.
A Christian might get elected to office there, but a Christian political party simply doesn't stand a chance.
Coptic Christians are definitely less than 10% after Odumbo funded their massacre 9 months ago.
Lepor

Ames, IA

#181 Jan 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! This is absolute fiction.
Coptics represent less than 10% of the Egyptian population.
A Christian might get elected to office there, but a Christian political party simply doesn't stand a chance.
How dareth thee blasthem the Church of Christ.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#182 Jan 24, 2013
Lepor wrote:
<quoted text>
How dareth thee blasthem the Church of Christ.
You have a real problem with Christianity, don't you? Why is that, if I may ask.
Lepor

Ames, IA

#184 Jan 24, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a real problem with Christianity, don't you? Why is that, if I may ask.
Simple.....
1700 years of war, coruption, torture, absolute power, murder, enslavement, witch hunts, the Spanish inquisition, persecution, and a few other things that Jesus would have had a large problem with.
Did you know Jesus did not want an organized religion?
True Christians do not need the blessings of the church. True Christians are free to worship as they see fit.
It was Peter who wanted to start a church.
So in actuality The Catholic church is not the vision of the Christ. It is the vision of Peter.
So no Catholic is a Christian. They are all Petorians.
Suck on that freako.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#185 Jan 24, 2013
The only thing Christians seem to excel at is identifying which other Christians aren't the "real Christians".

What I find hilarious about the current political situation is that the Republican Party is supposed to be the party for both the Christians and the Randians. Yet, there are two groups with less in common than those two.

If you are an Ayn Rand follower, you ain't siding with Jesus. And if you are with Jesus, you ain't siding with Rand.

You can't be both. So, which is it, Conservatives? Are you hardline fiscal objectivists who think that religion is for idiots? Or are you compassionate followers of Christ who feel we should prevent abortion and radically increase welfare to support needy children?

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#186 Jan 24, 2013
Lepor wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple.....
1700 years of war, coruption, torture, absolute power, murder, enslavement, witch hunts, the Spanish inquisition, persecution, and a few other things that Jesus would have had a large problem with.
Did you know Jesus did not want an organized religion?
True Christians do not need the blessings of the church. True Christians are free to worship as they see fit.
It was Peter who wanted to start a church.
So in actuality The Catholic church is not the vision of the Christ. It is the vision of Peter.
So no Catholic is a Christian. They are all Petorians.
Suck on that freako.
Props to you, dude(ss).

The way I see it, every person should be allowed to believe and practice whatever religious thing he or she wants to. Even wail at full moon while dancing around a bloody chicken foot. Or worse.

But keep it private. Like, in your house, in your church, but leave your religion out of the public marketplace.

That's my formula for getting along with one another.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#187 Jan 24, 2013
None of this balances any budget, does it?

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#188 Jan 24, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
None of this balances any budget, does it?
Chill, dude.

"Financial woes" aren't that big a deal in the scheme of things.

In the scheme of things.

Got it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min kent 665,091
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 34 min AussieBobby 284,448
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 41 min Johnny 1,209
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 44 min bad bob 184,652
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 50 min Seentheotherside 446
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr nanoanomaly 87,858
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr nanoanomaly 977,205
The Future of Politics in America 3 hr guest 127
More from around the web